Questions regarding the Election and Nomination Process

[Rolf]

Again, we're not "changing someone's words"--we are not inserting any words, and we are not doing any raw modifications. We are deleting--exactly the same thing you advocate, different only in degree. Which is a more drastic offense against an author's meaning--removing four of his words or removing all of them?

Sam, this is a tricky problem. Of course there is mathematically less damage if you only delete/edit some words rather than a whole post. I'm not sure but I think I know why Bob takes the opposite position. And I see him in a justified position. He's one of those whose contributions are without question of maximal value. It's his speech if he adds some harsh looking remarks. If you delete there in parts, although Bob never means it personally, you edit his speech what he cant tolerate. Deleting a whole post however would be identical with Bob's moving out since he might conclude that it's unwanted that he further contributes. -

It's such a normal process and a reality for academics that they dont get involved in personal things. They might be harsh but that's again not meant personally. As the absolute top expert Bob should have the right to post here without being edited nor deleted. That having said, it shouldnt be confused with grantage of extra rights or such. It's our choice if we want to have a top expert writing or if we want to demonstrate how a top expert is being domesticated which is a contradiction in itself. -

The best proof for what I wrote is in a former exchange between him and myself in this thread. Please look how Bob responded how little interest he had in a 'personal' view in contrast to his concentration on facts. There you go...

[Graham Banks]

only just recently i was a party to a recent debate here where some posts were totally deleted in their entirety(no notice given about the deletion at least not to me)

If I have to delete some posts just before walking out the door to go to work, there will be no pm.
I make no apologies for that. That's life.
If a person posts knowing that their post is unacceptable, they shouldn't go squealing about not getting a pm every time a post gets deleted.
We are not fulltime moderators. We have lives.

Regards, Graham.

[bob]

(1) if you delete profanity, you change the meaning of the statement. "that is bullshit" becomes "that is <blank>" What is missing? "A great f***ing idea" or "a piece of sh**"?

(a) "A great f***ing idea" would not be edited (except perhaps to add the stars). Only abusive or offensive statements are being deleted--those which are forbidden by the charter.

(b) I suppose if you think knowing the specific content of peurile insults and abuse is important you have a point; personally I don't see the value of such knowledge to the forum.

(c) If an author puts invective in one post and valid content in another, you would (I assume) delete the abusive post and leave the other intact. But if he combines the identical statements in a single post, everything must go and deleting the abuse alone is suddenly a bad idea. Sorry, I don't get it.

So delete the post, or leave it alone. Nobody has the right to change someone's words, whether by insertion, deletion, or raw modification.

News reports chop up and abbreviate the content of speeches, statements, and interviews every day. Networks bleep bad language out of R-rated movies and live talk shows. Publishers edit authors; newspapers edit letters to the op-ed page. Words in public discourse get edited every day of the week.

I agree. And that is a problem. Take a comment out of context, and juxtapose it with another comment out of context, and the news media make news rather than just report on it. If they had to supply the _entire_ statement, it often means something completely different.

Again, we're not "changing someone's words"--we are not inserting any words, and we are not doing any raw modifications. We are deleting--exactly the same thing you advocate, different only in degree. Which is a more drastic offense against an author's meaning--removing four of his words or removing all of them?

IMHO, removing part of them is far worse. Because the "part" that is removed is a subjective decision. Tell me my post is unacceptable and I can either rewrite it myself to make it more acceptable, or just move on and leave it MIA.

(2) the potential is there for great abuse. A moderator gets into a spat with a member, and then says "you have done this several times already..." and edits old posts to make his point. The potential is simply unacceptable and unnecessary.

It is even easier to argue that there is potential for mods to abuse the power to delete posts in their entirety--using some small pretext to erase everything someone says. Remember the debate on the old board about using the word "clone"? A mod (especially one with an agenda) could fully delete every post containing such a term and completely eviscerate one side of a debate.

But if you delete all my posts, you are at least not putting words into my mouth. You can't make me say what you wish I had said, which leaves my words under my control.

But as far as that goes, if your moderators are not trustworthy it doesn't really matter what policies are in place, does it? One more reason to vote with care in the upcoming elections ...

Thanks for expressing your thoughts on the topic; I have offered mine, and we can agree to disagree.

-Sam-

I don't know how one would know _before_ the fact, that a moderator will suddenly run amok. Hindsight is 100% accurate, foresight is much less accurate. It is just a power we didn't have for the first 6-7 years, and _NOBODY_ thought it was a problem that we could only delete posts. So why is it necessary now?

[Henrik Dinesen]

so Dear Henrik..

you are going to accept your nomination or are we forced to remain in suspense until the last second??

Anticipatory Regards
Steve

Had it a bit on hold... sorry

On the other hand, I nearly promised last time - a year ago, after the close run, that I would give a try again, so...
The philosofies will be up in time

Releasing The Suspension Regards,
Henrik

[Dan Honeycutt]

It is just a power we didn't have for the first 6-7 years, and _NOBODY_ thought it was a problem that we could only delete posts. So why is it necessary now?

It's obviously not necessary but if newer software offers features that are beneficial (I don't argue that editing is or is not) you don't want to eschew those just because they weren't available before.

Best
Dan H.

[Steve B]

only just recently i was a party to a recent debate here where some posts were totally deleted in their entirety(no notice given about the deletion at least not to me)

If I have to delete some posts just before walking out the door to go to work, there will be no pm.
I make no apologies for that. That's life.
If a person posts knowing that their post is unacceptable, they shouldn't go squealing about not getting a pm every time a post gets deleted.
We are not fulltime moderators. We have lives.

Regards, Graham.

yes we do have lives

and if you dont have the time to moderate correctly then wait until you do have the time

dont do a half-assed job by deleting first and then notifying hours later if at all
you should be combining deletion and notification as if were the same single act of moderation

do the job right or step aside and let someone else do it for you

Steve

[Steve B]

It's obviously not necessary

period

if its not necessary.. then it is unnecessary
so why do it then?

Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

so Dear Henrik..

you are going to accept your nomination or are we forced to remain in suspense until the last second??

Anticipatory Regards
Steve

Had it a bit on hold... sorry

On the other hand, I nearly promised last time - a year ago, after the close run, that I would give a try again, so...
The philosofies will be up in time

Releasing The Suspension Regards,
Henrik

very good Henrik
i wish you the best of luck!

Well Done Regards
Steve

[swami]

so Dear Henrik..

you are going to accept your nomination or are we forced to remain in suspense until the last second??

Anticipatory Regards
Steve

Had it a bit on hold... sorry

On the other hand, I nearly promised last time - a year ago, after the close run, that I would give a try again, so...
The philosofies will be up in time

Releasing The Suspension Regards,
Henrik

All the best to you, Henrik. Waiting for your moderation philosophy.

Regards.

[Graham Banks]

only just recently i was a party to a recent debate here where some posts were totally deleted in their entirety(no notice given about the deletion at least not to me)

If I have to delete some posts just before walking out the door to go to work, there will be no pm.
I make no apologies for that. That's life.
If a person posts knowing that their post is unacceptable, they shouldn't go squealing about not getting a pm every time a post gets deleted.
We are not fulltime moderators. We have lives.

Regards, Graham.

yes we do have lives

and if you dont have the time to moderate correctly then wait until you do have the time

dont do a half-assed job by deleting first and then notifying hours later if at all
you should be combining deletion and notification as if were the same single act of moderation

do the job right or step aside and let someone else do it for you

Steve

Just being honest Steve and as I said I make no apologies for it.
If the membership disagrees with the job I've been doing, they'll vote me out.
If both of us get voted in, all your snide remarks are going to make it very difficult for us to work together.
Best not to burn bridges.
There is no perfect moderator.

Regards, Graham.